Tag Archives: science

Post navigation

Philosophy is the invention of strange forms of argumentation,necessarily bordering on sophistry, which remains its darkstructural double. To philosophize is always to develop an ideawhose elaboration and defence require a novel kind ofargumentation, the model for which lies neither in positivescience – not even in logic – nor in some supposedly innate facultyfor proper reasoning.

The supposed great misery of our century is the lack of time; our sense of that, not a disinterested love of science, and certainly not wisdom, is why we devote such a huge proportion of the ingenuity and income of our societies to finding faster ways of doing things—as if the final aim of mankind was to grow closer not to a perfect humanity, but to a perfect lightning flash.

& died to prove it.

Was I bored? No, I wasn’t fuckin’ bored. I’m never bored. That’s the trouble with everybody – you’re all so bored. You’ve had nature explained to you and you’re bored with it, you’ve had the living body explained to you and you’re bored with it, you’ve had the universe explained to you and you’re bored with it, so now you want cheap thrills and, like, plenty of them, and it doesn’t matter how tawdry or vacuous they are as long as it’s new as long as it’s new as long as it flashes and fuckin’ bleeps in forty fuckin’ different colors. So whatever else you can say about me, I’m not fuckin’ bored.

…so that he could plunge back into his chaos and drag out of it, with all its wet stars, his cosmos.

V. Nabokov – The Pale Fire

What can we say about creativity and about the process of creation? Let’s see. Nabokov here, comes up with a plan, which sounds to be rather simple. First you jump into your chaos and then, you bring back a cosmos. Probably the Greeks would agree. Maybe ha has a point, we shouldn’t rule it out just like that becasue it’s a story as old as the world itself. You know. Take a look on how Harris saw Pollock creating: